by Summary:
I read an article years ago written by a physicist who said that the US Missile Defense Shield was a giant scam and wouldn't work. As the article is over ten years old I never posted it here because technology would have moved on from then, but no it hasn't, says Philip Geraldi. Even the contractors who make the missile defense shield proudly boast that it will hit 97% of missiles coming into the USA. Gee! If Russia sends over a hundred missiles three will get through and blow the US to smithereens. That doesn't feel so good! Anyhow, Giraldi says that the shield will more than likely only hit about 3% of any incoming missiles. So, another con from the Industrial-Military Complex. Sometimes it is possible to read or view something that completely changes the way one looks at things. I
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
I read an article years ago written by a physicist who said that the US Missile Defense Shield was a giant scam and wouldn't work. As the article is over ten years old I never posted it here because technology would have moved on from then, but no it hasn't, says Philip Geraldi. Even the contractors who make the missile defense shield proudly boast that it will hit 97% of missiles coming into the USA. Gee! If Russia sends over a hundred missiles three will get through and blow the US to smithereens. That doesn't feel so good! Anyhow, Giraldi says that the shield will more than likely only hit about 3% of any incoming missiles. So, another con from the Industrial-Military Complex.I read an article years ago written by a physicist who said that the US Missile Defense Shield was a giant scam and wouldn't work. As the article is over ten years old I never posted it here because technology would have moved on from then, but no it hasn't, says Philip Geraldi. Even the contractors who make the missile defense shield proudly boast that it will hit 97% of missiles coming into the USA. Gee! If Russia sends over a hundred missiles three will get through and blow the US to smithereens. That doesn't feel so good! Anyhow, Giraldi says that the shield will more than likely only hit about 3% of any incoming missiles. So, another con from the Industrial-Military Complex. Sometimes it is possible to read or view something that completely changes the way one looks at things. I
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Mike Norman writes Bond market now pricing in one 25 bps rate cut by Fed in 2025
New Economics Foundation writes What are we getting wrong about tax
Sandwichman writes The more this contradiction develops…
Sometimes it is possible to read or view something that completely changes the way one looks at things.
I had that experience last week when I read an article at Lobelog entitled “A Plea for Common Sense on Missile Defense,” written by Joe Cirincione, a former staffer on the House Armed Services Committee who now heads the Ploughshares Fund, which is a Washington DC based global foundation that seeks to stop the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
The article debunks much of the narrative being put out by the White House and Pentagon regarding missile defence.
To be sure, it is perfectly reasonable to mistrust anything that comes out of the federal government justifying war given its track record going back to the War of 1812.
And the belligerent posture of the United States towards Iran and North Korea can well be condemned based on its own merits, threatening war where there are either no real interests at stake or where a diplomatic solution has for various reasons been eschewed.
*******
Even using the finest radars and sensors as well as the most advanced guidance technologies, the variables involved make it much more likely that there will be a miss than a hit. Cirincione observes that “…the only way to hit a bullet is if the bullet cooperates.”
Second, the tests carried out by the Pentagon to determine reliability are essentially fraudulent. Contrary to the Donald Trump comment, the 97% accuracy is an extrapolation based on firing four anti-missile missiles at a target to make up for the fact that in the rigged tests a single interceptor has proven to be closer to only 56% accurate, and that under ideal conditions.
This statistic is based on the actual tests performed since 1999 in which interceptors were able to shoot down 10 of 18 targets. The conclusion that four would result in 97% derives from the assumption that multiple interceptors increases the accuracy but most engineers would argue that if one missile cannot hit the target for any number of technical shortcomings it is equally likely that all four will miss for the same reason.
The tests themselves are carefully scripted to guarantee success. They take place in daylight, preferably at dusk to ensure maximum visibility, under good weather conditions, and without any attempt made by the approaching missile to confuse the interceptor through the use of electronic countermeasures or through the ejection of chaff or jammers, which would certainly be deployed.
The targets in tests have sometimes been heated to make them easier to find and some have had transponders attached to make them almost impossible to miss. As a result, the missile interceptor system has never been tested under realistic battlefield conditions.